Supreme Court begins Nirbhaya hearing after 2 years

As per procedure, the apex court also needs to confirm the capital
punishment and only then Mukesh, Pawan, Vinay and Akshay can be hanged.

advertisement

Harish V Nair

New Delhi

April 5, 2016

UPDATED: April 5, 2016 09:24 IST

The December 16, 2012, gangrape had triggered nationwide protests.

After being relegated to cold storage for more than two years, the Supreme Court on Monday finally began hearing the appeal filed by the four adult convicts in the gruesome Nirbhaya gang rape and murder against the death sentence handed down by the trial court and Delhi High Court.

As per procedure, the apex court also needs to confirm the capital punishment and only then Mukesh, Pawan, Vinay and Akshay can be hanged. The juvenile convict has already walked free after serving three years at a juvenile home while another accused - Mukesh's brother Ram Singh - committed suicide inside Tihar Jail during the trial.

As ML Sharma, the lawyer for Mukesh and Pawan said the accused had not got a fair trial with the 'lower court and Delhi High Court rushing through under various pressures', the SC said: "We will hear it like a trial court and you can place on record whatever evidence you have. We will give you a patient hearing. Let time be consumed."

But to the shock of all in the jam-packed courtroom, Sharma straight away came to gory details in his attempt to pick holes in the prosecution case. He disputed the use of iron rod by the accused which was central to the brutality and death sentence. He also questioned how the victim, who was in a critical condition and straight away put on a ventilator, gave a dying declaration.

"Something which is not possible medically was said by police that an iron rod was repeatedly inserted into her. The report of the Singapore hospital says the uterus was intact. If a rod is inserted through the vagina, it cannot go inside the body without breaking the uterus," he said. But Justice Dipak Misra, who perused the hospital report, said: "What are you talking? Records say ovaries have been destroyed. So nothing turns on that."

When Sharma claimed the dying declaration was a creation of the police, the court shot back saying, "There is an examination on record of the SDM and a Magistrate in this respect. Why can't it be believed?"

The bench's comment came after Delhi Police Special Public Prosecutor Siddharth Luthra told the court,"Yes, she could communicate very little but she was alert and made it up through gestures and signals in response to questions."